Tuesday, June 05, 2007

For two years I've offered my opinions about this sport. I've been honest, consistent, and willing to admit when I've been wrong. I've never censored your comments. I've said uncomfortable things that have needed to be said and I've made enemies of many people who wish no one would challenge their actions or their opinions. I've written all of my posts with a smile on my face because, let's face it, this is just a blog.

Now, as promised, my time is up. Those of you who have your own opinions about women's lightweight rowing - the floor is yours.

But remember, it's just a game.

FITD - R.I.P.

[Update: New Georgetown coach: "We're going to be just like Bucknell." Has Bucknell doomed women's lightweight rowing for the sake of a coach's resume?]

179 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Glory be to the father, the son an the holy JW Burke. Is she back???? Could we be so lucky? Lwt rowing almost disappeared this summer. But, thankfully, the savior has returned. Don't need to watch Jerry Springer anymore.

Thank you for coming back! I was on the fence about the Bucknell thing until Georgetown happened! It is like I have found religion. How terrible for the girls in that program and the lw coach who btw had started contacted talented "light" rowers before he left. What is he going to tell them now? Go to Wisco, Dayton, UCF? Better yet Stetson who is STARTING a lw program not burying one. How sad. Dark days.

JW!!!! REALLY!!!! CAN IT BE????? Speak! Say something! Give us a sign! Tell us what to do! Are you really alive??? Glory Be! Are you hiding behind the curtain? Waiting for us to yell "encore"? You can't go on without the attention, eh?

Encore! Encore! Unfortunately, coaching changes are risk points for every lw women's program. The optimal time to manage this is before a new coach is hired. Many coaching prospects will have come from programs that never fielded a lw women's boat. Why is Georgetown dropping their accomplished lw women's program? Are they dropping the men's lw program?

the GT lightweight coach isn't leaving. they just got a new head coach for women and coach o'connor will still be there. the new guy wants one big team. he says he'll still row lightweight boats, but the girls on the team don't know what that means. will they have a full schedule like last year? will they row against the best light boats? will he require them to row openweight? will this affect them at Sprints and IRA's?

Again what would happen if Georgetown showed up at the IRA next year and won it, using the same "method" that Bucknell use? And then the next year Lehigh showed up and won it. What would happen? Would lightweight rowing disappear? Would the AD's from Princeton, Wisconsin, Radcliffe, MIT and Stanford all of a sudden say "scrap the lwt program. We obviously don't need it to go fast at the IRA!"?? I'm interested to hear an answer.

"Would the AD's from Princeton, Wisconsin, Radcliffe, MIT and Stanford all of a sudden say "scrap the lwt program! "

Once again, you are attempting to win one debate by creating another. Many of these programs have solid alumni connections who would fight or otherwise help support the teams. However other schools that do not have said alumni connections would just never create a team. The question isn't about maintaining the status quo, it is about expanding it. What impetus does Bucknell have to create a lightweight team now? For that matter, how about Alabama? And frankly, who's to say that another team won't follow Georgetown's path? Take a look at Rutgers on the men's side. Lots of alumni and multiple Olympians (I believe the most for the entire school). What has all this done for them? Nada.

I think Bucknell has much more impetus to continue supporting the lwt effort now more than ever. Depends on how you look at it. As for another crew, like Alabama as you point out, it is very dependent on the coach. But, more importantly... I think someone like Humbolt, or Fairfield, or someone else, who doesn't have many resources, might put a lwt boat together for the IRA, thinking hey, Bucknell did it, maybe we will try it, and maybe that crew will do well. And maybe the result is that more lwt high school students will now have Humbolt or Fairfield on their radar. Now, more lwts apply and go to those schools, enabling them to have a full lwt boat or two, maybe even for the entire year, and there you go.... a new lwt program. If having separate coaches and equipment is a prerequisite for lwt boats to sprout up, it isn't going to happen. Crews need to see that a lwt boat is not an impossible thing to do. Having an unknown program win the IRA is just the thing that can help that along. Although I doubt that is/was Bucknell's goal, I believe their finish is going to have a positive impact on lwt rowing, regardless of what is going on at Georgetown. I think the jury is still out as to how Gtown will change, if at all.

What should I think about Georgetown?How have the summer races been for lightweights (USRowing nationals, Henley, etc.)?Who are the teams to watch for this year?Where does Wisco go from here? can they make a comeback? Are there any other new lightweight teams? Setson?Is Tulsa going to try to bring back their injured team from last year?Any other coaching changes besides Dayton and Georgetown?

My sympathies for lightweight rowing are well-enough known. I would not call this a bias towards lightweights, merely a fondness for what is essentially the common thread in my feelings for the sport: the opportunity for everyone to participate in our great sport. Lightweights can certainly compete with heavyweights. Individual lightweights can win seats in heavyweight crews, and lightweight crews can defeat heavyweight counterparts. There is certainly a legitimate argument for saying that the little people should suck it up and play with the big boys. I think that argument misses the point.

Lightweights often get lost in the heavyweight world. Many potential rowers are turned away before they ever get going because of their size. In the wrong conditions, lightweight crews are more likely to get smooshed. There is something nice about having a level playing field. Lightweight rowing has a different character to heavyweight rowing as a result of these two factors: because lightweights are smaller, they have to be craftier with their oars and make the most of what they have, and because they are all roughly the same size, they can row differently both technically and mentally. Lightweight rowing has an entirely different mental outlook than heavyweight rowing, something more spontaneous and, in many ways, fun.

There are also far more small athletic people than there are large athletic people. Having a separate lightweight category opens the sport up to the smaller people. And, as my regular readers will know, the more people who row the better for the sport. Some lightweights will indeed push their way into heavy crews, and some lightweight crews will challenge heavyweight crews. In programs I have known which have completely separate heavyweight and lightweight squads, rather than weakening the program by diluting talent they foster a greater amount of talent to the program through increased numbers.

With that introduction, I must add that men’s lightweight rowing, although still the often-neglected younger brother to men’s heavyweight rowing, is nevertheless in pretty reasonable health. Women’s lightweight rowing, the focus of this month’s letter, lives the life of an abandoned orphan. Indeed, rowing is often simply classified as "heavyweight," "lightweight," and "women." I do not think this is a slight of women’s rowing that men’s rowing does not have "men’s" appended in front of its categories. What this tells me instead is that people see no need to put the possessive "men’s" before the two categories, because it is obvious that those two categories refer to men, since the women have but one category.

Where are all the lightweight women? Merely looking around, just about anyone could surmise that there are more 135-pound athletically inclined women than there are 165-pound athletically inclined women. Seems to me like a natural market for the sport. So why aren’t they rowing?

Well, women’s lightweight rowing was born fourth of the four categories, so it is only natural that it would take some time to develop. What scares me, however, is that the trend to expand the sport has gone into reverse in this one area. The international culprit is FISA, which has made some inexplicable decisions in recent years. In the United States, we will have the NCAA to blame (surprise, surprise!).

First, briefly, let me discuss FISA. In recent years, FISA has become a bit loopy in its decisions. Historically (at least in recent history), the organization has supported any and all ways to expand rowing into countries which do not traditionally row. Many of these countries which have received support from FISA have been in Asia and Latin America, which have relatively smaller men and women. As a result, FISA’s initiative in those countries has helped lightweight rowing more than heavyweight. The chances of, say, Japan challenging in the heavy eight are slim, but increase in the lightweight eight. Rowing has actually become quite popular in Japan. Men’s lightweight events at worlds are now generally fully-subscribed.

The lag in women’s athletics has played out detrimentally in rowing. Not only have women trailed men historically, but those countries which encouraged women’s athletics often placed a premium on large athletic women, purpose-built, and not simply athletic women in general. This has resulted in the under-subscription of lightweight women’s events internationally. FISA has spent much of the 1990s consolidating its events, in part because of pressure from the International Olympic Committee (I suppose that will have to be a future topic). Since FISA never gave women’s lightweight rowing a chance to grow to maturity, consolidation at this point has meant scrapping most events for lightweight women. All sweep events have been axed, on the logic that no country could field enough lightweight women to justify having both a sweep and a sculling squad, and that forcing all lightweight women to scull would result in stronger competition. All the decision is doing, though, is limiting opportunities for women’s lightweight rowing and stifling growth in that area which had been imminent. Just when FISA should have been pushing to have as an ultimate goal a women’s lightweight eight event to match the big crew in the other three categories (no, we aren’t ready for such an event yet, but it should be an objective), we now see fewer lightweight women on the international stage.

Messages like this one from FISA trickle down to each country in different ways. In the United States, women’s lightweight rowing had been a growth area. Just when it looked like it might take off, it now finds itself in danger. Enter the evil NCAA, which has recently taken over collegiate women’s rowing.

One of the many problems with the NCAA take-over of women's rowing is its refusal to recognize the potential of women's lightweight rowing. There are far more athletically-minded lightweight women than heavyweight. Since most rowers come to the sport in college anyway, that means there should be a natural pool of women who can be attracted into the sport who otherwise might be scared away. Indeed, this past Summer I was looking through some old scrapbooks in Harvard’s Newell Boathouse. Reading newspaper clippings from the 1970s, when women’s rowing first properly took off at American colleges, many lightweight women flocked to the new opportunity. The top women’s programs raced two or more women’s lightweight eights in addition to the heavyweight squads.

Something happened in the 1980s - I have no idea what. But by the time I got to college, most places had scrapped their women’s lightweight programs. When I was an undergrad, the only Div I women's lightweight program in the country was at Radcliffe. Unable to find much in the way of competition, Radcliffe’s lightweight squad itself became subsumed into the heavyweight program in a rather bizarre fashion which is not worth going into here. But, come springtime, Radcliffe alone of the Div I programs turned out lightweight crews.

Rather predictably, Radcliffe has won the national championship every year since I can remember, with two exceptions: once in the late 1980s in dreadful weather conditions, and then not again until this past season, when Villanova (Div III in rowing, but races a mostly Div I schedule) came away with an upset win. Indeed, Villanova’s win in the pre-season at San Diego a few years ago in and of itself was a shock, since no one had challenged Radcliffe’s sovereignty in so long. Indeed, I clearly remember one year when I was an undergrad, when Radcliffe went to the nationals and captured first, second, and third, with fourth place about thirty seconds back of third.

This predicament was not one Radcliffe was particularly happy with. For many years, Radcliffe has taken the lead in encouraging women’s lightweight rowing. In recent years, this has resulted in several places finally adding the weight class. Sorry as I was to see Radcliffe lose this year, I am glad that several programs are finally offering competitive programs, with more on the way. But the NCAA wants to stifle this new trend.

That said, I do not have any hang-ups about lightweights rowing in heavy crews. I myself usually weight-adjust erg tests - even if I don't have time to do all the calculations, I still take weight into account and let everyone know I am taking weight into account. I chose not to have any lightweight crews at William and Mary last year, in fact, for men or women, simply because it made more sense at this point in the development of our program not to. We did not have a sufficiently large number of people on the squad to make the split practical. This year, my men have raced the Fall in a split squad and are likely to remain split in the Spring (although I am reserving a final decision until the Spring so I can decide what will result in the most competitive crews overall). By 1999-2000, this team should be able to have the numbers and talent to fully support lightweight rowing.

This underlines the simple fact that although combined programs were officially "openweight" not "heavyweight," lightweight women were not making the grade. The big programs which could have supported separate lightweight squads as Radcliffe did, were not so much lumping lightweights into heavyweight programs as they were excluding lightweights from the sport.

It also underscores why women’s lightweight rowing did not die out at the Div III level. Programs such as Villanova could attract only a certain number of women, and if they happened to be smaller in size it made sense to push for lightweight events. Villanova’s lightweights remain to this day faster than its heavyweights.

Besides the emergence of reasonably strong women’s lightweight crews at the Div II and Div III levels, several Div I programs have added separate lightweight squads, notably Princeton, Wisconsin, Georgetown, and UVA (more on UVA in a minute). This has not hindered the success of the heavyweight squads, it has opened up more athletic opportunities to women, and more opportunities for people to come to this sport who otherwise might not be here.

Into this climate came the NCAA. The NCAA expressed concern about the image of women making weight. These are athletes we are talking about, but what would the NCAA know? Lightweight women rowers are not a bunch of anorexics and bulemics. They do not present a negative image of women to society. They are highly motivated athletes with great appreciation for their bodies. The NCAA’s concern is misguided, especially when contrasted with its unconcerned approach to men’s wrestling and what many grapplers do to make weight. In part as a result of this (there were other issues, too, of course), the NCAA failed to sponsor a national championship for women’s lightweight crews.

One is not strictly necessary, of course, since a national championship already exists for women’s lightweight rowing, currently at the IRA regatta. But the lack of NCAA sanction has its drawbacks.

The problem is that the NCAA has officially taken over "women's rowing" not "women's heavyweight rowing." There is a big difference there - it means that women's lightweight rowing is now governed by the NCAA just as heavyweight rowing is, but the NCAA doesn't accord the events full recognition. That makes women's lightweight rowing second-class. It also means that athletic directors with limited budgets and no understanding of rowing will begin to question the use of supporting women's lightweight rowing, and that means fewer opportunites for women's athletes down the road - not more. As a corollary, it means that even sensible rowing coaches such as Kevin Sauer, Head Women’s Coach at UVA, have been forced to cut out their women’s lightweight squads as not making any sense under the NCAA-governed sport. So UVA, a Div I program which did recently add lightweights, will now lose them as of next Fall.

Now think about that. How many lightweight-sized women will be rowing for programs such as UVA within a few years? A handful, no doubt. But will it be proportionate to the number of athletic women at the college as a whole who weigh under 140 pounds? If other Div I programs without lightweight squads are anything to go by, I doubt it. So, that implies that the door has either been shut on all lightweight women who might wish to try the sport at, or that the program will give the impression that the door is shut. That's sad, because I am sure there are a lot of women out there who would love the sport and the opportunity to take part in intercollegiate sports who may even become great rowers if given the opportunity.

The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. With fewer opportunities for lightweight rowing, fewer women will turn out. The overall standard will remain low, which in itself is a justification for governing bodies to restrict events in the class, which in turns makes programs interested in excellence less likely to push the class, and so forth. That's why it was so frustrating for Radcliffe for all those years.

More colleges should be adding lightweight women's rowing. Indeed, one hot topic in the US is the issue of "gender equity" (unfortunate word-choice, but since when could politically correct people speak English?). Considering this issue, it seems odd that so many places have only three separate programs (men's heavies, men's lights, women) and not four. Even some of the places which have instituted lightweight rowing for women have done so under the auspices of the overall women's program (not at Princeton, but certainly at Villanova, GW, UVA, Wisco, and many other places). It seems to me like an overdue idea to give women's lightweights equal billing. That would be an easy way to increase funding for women’s athletics, something athletics departments are eager to do (and the law arguably mandates).

So ends another rant.

Several years ago I coached a crew with an average weight of 120 pounds. They were pretty novicy, and they also were not particularly athletic previously, beyond wanting to be reasonably fit. I have no idea why they decided to row in the first place. One day they were leaving their boathouse together. As they passed another boathouse, they were approached by some guy from another college. His crew’s coxswain had failed to turn up, and he needed a cox. He looked at them, told them he assumed that they were just coming back from a coxswain’s meeting, and asked if one of them would cox his practice. They got offended and told him to bugger off. They told me the story the next time they saw me, demanding that I harden them into women readily identifiable as rowers. I know some programs which would have told them to go away or become coxswains, and who would benefit then? The women would not, the program would not (other than getting a potentially good cox or two for the men), and the sport would not. One of these women was perhaps the most natural rower I have ever coached. She came to the sport rather late in College, and her employment after graduation was not conducive to rowing. Had she gotten into the sport sooner, or had she gotten a job which was better-suited to rowing, she might have gone far. As a sport, we need to find ways to get people like this involved and to keep them involved.

Keep open the door. Women’s lightweight rowing is the future for growth in this sport.

Jw-so, you are angry about WHATEVER. Lightweight rowing rowers and fans need your voice. It is time to come back, comment about the season, teams, coaches, rowers. You are important. Let the water flow off your back. Please

First, please come back! I'm new to the sport (my daughter was a runner in high school) and you have given me a great insight into the sport, and all it can be.

Second, don't prejudge the new coach at Georgetown. I think he meant that he wanted the lightweight program to be strong enough to compete with Bucknell, not that he wanted to streatch the definition of "lightweight" as Bucknell has. Coach O'Conner is still on board and working with the young ladies (can't call them girls any more).

I'm optimistic that the GU program will be faithful to the ethos of lightweight rowing.

Our initial focus will be NCAA events which are all Open weight. However, rowing is a unique sport in many ways. One way is that it provides even racing competition among women at their healthy weight. Lightweight rowing is not part of the NCAA Championships, although there are provisions for a National Championship race in this category. It includes women under 135 pounds. We strongly encourage Lightweight women to come out as soon as September 2008, our first season. There will be great racing opportunities for both open and lightweight women and within the first five years we will look to expand the team to formally include a Lightweight program.

Intoxication is a far cry different from hazing...I challenge you to find a single college rowing team that has not had an athlete taken to the hospital or cited for underage drinking. It would be really nice if the rowing world could support this team as it went through this, it's really unfortunate to see how quickly everyone will judge them, and assume they are wrong.

SUCKKKKKKKKKKS. Too bad Bucknell won't have a shot at IRA's this year. What a bunch of dumbasses. You have one good season and think that it's ok to do that to your new rowers? All of you should be ashamed of your actions. You don't deserve to race.

You don't know the facts. That is why it's under investigation. According to some of the "new" rowers, absolutely nothing happened that could be considered hazing and three of the four were men, not women. Sometimes the press isn't always giving you the whole story.

Copied From Rower's World site:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone needs to gain some perspective here. According to the dictionary; Hazing is forcing people to participate in an act that is meant to demean them by humiliation. This is not what happened at Bucknell.

Having spoke with people "in the know" what happened was a scavenger hunt that was in line with university sponsored initiation events, followed by a party that was approved by the university social committee. For the Scavenger hunt the frosh ran around and found stuff. Not anything illegal, and not anything different than what the entire frosh class, athletes and non athletes alike, were forced to do at the start of the school year.

Following the conclusion of the scavenger hunt the teams had a party. Like most college parties there was drinking, and there was underage drinking. Not unlike a lot of college parties many people drank to excess. What is lost in the shuffle, and jumping to conclusions that have occurred here, is that the party was a purely optional event attended by Varsity, and frosh alike, and that attendance of this party didn't require anyone to drink. There were frosh and varsity that chose not to attend, without any consequences for not going to the party. There were also frosh and varsity members who did attend the party, and chose not to drink. These members were not cast out for not drinking.

Simply put, this was a case of a party that got out of hand, and some college freshmen drank too much. No one was forcing them to drink, or do anything they didn't willingly choose to do on their own.

Enough of that malarkey. Tell it to the judge. Let's talk about what's happenning on the water:From http://media.www.pittnews.com/media/storage/paper879/news/2007/10/09/Sports/Pitt-Crew.Launches.Season.At.Head.Of.Ohio-3019790.shtml"The Head of the Ohio proved to be a massive event, with a seemingly endless array of tents scattered outside Heinz Field. The thousands competing and in attendance had to deal with the sweltering heat, which was almost 90 degrees throughout the afternoon.

On Saturday, the women were more successful than their male teammates. Pitt won gold medals for their first-place times in the four- and eight-rower women's open lightweight."

the only people who would defend the actions of the bucknell teams are their moms and the rowers themselves. after going to hazing informative lectures scavenger hunts are considered hazing. and after going on one at my last school i can whole-heartedly attest to this.

Well, who better than one of the rowers would know what went on? Yes, scavenger hunts COULD be considered hazing IF they meet certain criteria, BUT, if you weren't there, how would you know? From what I heard, it was completely voluntary with no consequences and was just pure, simple fun. No alcohol was involved and one had nothing to do with the other.

Where do we draw the line?!Last I heard, the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and many kindergarten classes and day camps still have scavenger hunts! Shame on them!!!

It doesn't matter what actually happened or did not happen, the point is that Bucknell got itself in the news in a negative sense. And yes it may have been a normal college party that the kids got drunk at, but since the team was associated with it rowing, Bucknell Crew will take a PR hit. Student athletes are held to a higher standard and must be careful not to let their teammates or themselves do stupid things.

Well, I do agree with you; however, it does matter in that the team's spring season may hinge on the results of this investigation. I think the school should work hard to pull this wonderful team out of the negative spotlight and back into the positive one by perhaps admitting that they went too far with this investigation and certainly by allowing the team to shine again in the spring.

Fall '07 Racing Update:UCF has opened up their season at the Head of the Oklahoma with two eights racing in the Women’s Open 8+ category (perhaps with lightweights in these boats?). Georgetown’s raced at the Head of the Potomac and Navy Day regattas, both in Open and Lightweight events. Despite rumors of suspension, Bucknell has raced with positive results at the Head of the Genesee and Navy Day Regatta.Wisconsin appears to have had a successful start to the season, racing at the Milwaukee River Challenge, “Class Day Races,” and the Head of the Rock Regatta. MIT’s racing season has started at the New Hampshire Championship on October 14, 2007, where they’ve raced several boats in the Open Women’s categories. It looks like Stanford has been doing some early season scrimmaging, racing three lightweight 4+’s at the Wine Country Rowing Classic on October 7th. The Princeton and Radcliffe websites have yet to be updated for the ’07-’08 season, though we’ll surely be seeing them next week at the Charles – let’s look forward to next weekend, when we’ll hope to see quite a few of these schools racing each other!

Glad to see some attention paid to what's happening on the water this fall. But I think you erred on Bucknell by taking last year's results from the website re the Head of the Genesee and the Philadelphia Navy Day Regatta. Bucknell was not participating in either 2007 regatta, and remains under suspension pending the results of the investigation, according to the last news I saw. Thanks for the update, though!

At the Philadelphia Navy Day Regatta, the Georgetown light eights edged Lehigh by less than 7 seconds over the 2.4 mile course. The Georgetown open eights apparently had four lightweights in the boat, and took second in a field of eleven, losing to the US Naval Academy by about 12 seconds and beating Penn by 3 seconds. The Georgetown lw four took first in a field including Lehigh, the Georgetown B lw four, and a couple of Lafayette boats. A great regatta!

JW...by keeping this site up on the web, you are leading us to believe that you are eventually coming back. Can you just let us know.. Yes, you'll be back next spring. Or no, you are definitely done with running the blog. I imagine it took a lot of time and effort. If people know that you are definitely not coming back, perhaps someone will pick up the torch and continue forward with a lwt women's blog. Please advise.

Why the good folks at the HOCR don't reserve some spots for petitions is beyond my comprehension. Many fine boats are unable to compete where some incapable boats are allowed to row. I appreciate the work the committee performs, but I also think that they should rethink their lottery system.

Looked like all the collegiate LWT women were pretty slow in the eight. In pretty fast conditions, (Canada one second off the course record)the college teams were slower than collegiate winning times from years past. Looks like the field is getting closser, but not really faster.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for the time it took to come up with this "decision". I also find it very hard to believe that no other teams or clubs have parties, drinking, etc. Boy, things must have changed since my college days!

Things have changed since you went to college, kids are drinking themselves into the hospital on a regular basis. As some of you may try to make me believe, there is no excuse for their behavior. This whole "that's what happens in college" is why kids are doing it to this level. They have no awareness of the possible consequences. I hope other college coaches have this article posted in their boathouse to teach there kids how quickly things get taken away if you screw up. The women may be able to race starting January 1st, but their reputation will take a significant hit. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking everything is going to just be OK. The men are really in a hole and those seniors have lost their last opportunity to compete in college rowing. The juniors will have to wear the shame for the rest of this year. All you can hope is that the sophomores and freshman have learned to keep their s*!$ in order.Don't excuse them. This is not a case of a couple of college athletes having a beer or two. The bottom line is if you choose to get out of control and act stupid, there are consequences. Luckily for them their only punishment is that they cannot row around in boats.

My daughter's best friend is an upperclassmen on the team. I don't know if this is true, but she said the one girl who went to the hospital drank before the event. And the President was so concerned about the PR (and Bucknell trying to fight the image of a party school), the whole thing was blow out of proportion. Can anyone confirm this?

To the parent who asked the question about the girl's drinking: I heard the same thing from a member of the team who was also there. Apparently little or no drinking went on at the girls' party. I also heard that the girl made it very clear to the admin. that that was the case.???? Who knows?My concern is that the girls are on "probation". That would basically preclude them from doing anything as a team lest someone exhibits some indiscretion and stupidity. Also, is the university holding all the teams and clubs to the same standards?

To the person who asked whether we HAVE something better to do, the answer is basically a matter of priorities. First priority, our children, all else comes next.

Of course there is an legitimate explanation. Some college kids let their drinking get out of hand. So out of hand in fact that a few of them went to the hospital and subsequently have embarrassed the rowing program. Would you prefer the school hold no standards for the behavior of their students/student-athletes? Bucknell has taken the standpoint that ridiculous behavior beyond the scope of normal college activities will not be tolerated. I hope more schools do this. The fact that you are more worried about them not being able to race than the fact that a couple of kids might have died says a lot.

Apparently you have not talked to any other current college kids who say that alcohol poisoning is a fairly common occurance. As unfortunate as it is, and I do not put rowing above safety, it appears that the standards are not being evenly applied. Do you really believe that the football, basketball, lacrosse, etc. teams and the frats do not drink in excess? I'm not aware of their season being cancelled.Please let me know if you know anything different.I truly hope that more schools take the stand that Bucknell did too, but it should be even-handed.

I agree that it is possible that the punishments maybe being handed out un-uniformly and I agree that it is unfair. However, if the crew team is the example this time, it does put the school in an odd position if another team does the same thing and they do not receive the same punishment. Don't miss the point though. On this occasion they made a bad decision and ultimately must accept the consequences. If the school makes a habit out of not punishing the other teams the same way, then someone should expose that fact. Otherwise, just complaining that your children were punished unfairly in comparison to others is not a good idea. It sends the wrong message to the athletes. If as a parent you find their behavior reprehensible then you should be happier that there are consequences and that your child is not given a free pass as other athletes may be. The crew kids have the opportunity to live up to expectations, while other may have not expectations which ultimately is much, much worse then unfair distribution of punishment.

I believe that the report said that there was "competition drinking", and I believe that it said that some of the juniors and seniors played a role in it. "Competition drinking", involving juniors and seniors, and the hospitalization of four kids distinguishes this incident from your garden-variety frat party. The hospitalized kids were just beginning their college experiences, and were likely vulnerable at that time in that environment. The university had no alternative but to respond as they did. But I do feel for the kids who had nothing to do with it who lost a season.

does anybody know whatever happened with Georgetown? Did they race mixed boats all fall? Will they still enter lights this spring? Is O'Connor still involved? It would be great if we didn't have to worry about them. They always raced tougher than we expected...

If someone would like to pick up FITD, I'd be happy to facilitate that. I've been turned down with this offer a few times and I need to be a bit picky about who might follow on (e.g. no current collegiate rowers). Anyway, if you're interested, let me know. The season approaches.

Still haven't seen an indoor rowing machine win a race on open water. Let's not forget that an oar in the hand is a much less forgiving piece of equipment than a piece of wood attached to a cord. Experience,technique, and stamina on the water usually separates low erg scores and medal winners.

I agree that experience, technique and stamina certainly separate the haves from the have-nots, but do you really think the low erg score is a sure-thing indicator?As a more-or-less novice master, I do not see that the technique is very similar. The arms are different and except the fact that the seat is on a slide, the movement is very different too; no balance required.Is there any other sport where a machine (ie treadmill & track) is almost as important as performance?Why not a stationary bike?

There is no "sure-thing" indicator of winning races. An erg score is a standardized measurement of fitness, power and aerobic endurance and strength which, when adjusted for weight, helps quantify the potential contribution to boat speed by a given rower.

Factors that win races include technique, strategy and execution of that plan, coordination of rowers, and drive and passion to excel and win. A low erg score and these winning attributes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one could argue that a low erg score is indicative of the passion to excel and win because it takes a lot of sweat and hard work to train to a low erg score. The necessary training is not glamorous, it can be lonely and tedious, but the job gets done.

Given the nature of rowing and the many uncontrollable dimensions of the sport, such as water and wind conditions, an erg score helps to isolate and identify the pure power of a given rower. It's not the same as being on the water, but the erg is a fairly good estimator of the motions and mechanics of rowing.

No matter how sophisticated the technique, a tired and exhausted rower will gradually lose control and focus. Given the choice of two equally technically sharp and driven rowers, the stronger and more powerful athlete will probably win.

Does anyone know if it was the Georgetown openweight women or lightweight women who were dumped into the Potomac River on Saturday? From what I understand, it was a terrible day to be on the water and the coaches should have known better.

Thanks for posting the link to this new forum. I've been looking for and missing the previous community from www.rowersworld.com since it apparently got hacked a couple of months ago. This new forum is great, although not at all is it a substitute for JW Burk and FITD. JW, I know you're not coming back, and thank you so much for two years of the best rowing commentary of which I'm aware. That it dealt specifically with lightweight women's rowing is no impediment to its effect on rowing in general. There was so much knowledge and experience to be gleaned from your writing and and commentary. Thank you! And thanks to whomever posted the current link.

so now it is racing season and still nobody has stepped up. Tulsa raced wisco in fours, UCF raced a week ago, and Buffalo and Dayton did pieces in Tenn. Nobody has picked up the torch lit by JW, and www.rowingillustrated.com/boards has not picked up after a small show of interest. Where can I get my lightweight rowing hype/info?

this weekend Bucknell will race at the Murphy Cup in Philly, an event with lightweight races, but out of 11 fours and 5 lwt eights, Bucknell has no lightweight crews entered. a sad state. join the discussion in the lightweight college section of the boards mentioned above.

Well the poll on that blog is bogus...clearly all the Wisco girls have found it...the voting is a little baffling...Princeton beat Stanford who held off Wisco by 12 seconds? Doesn't make much sense why they're at teh top of the poll

I just set up a new buy and sell website for rowing clubs, www.rowingboatsforsale.com

I hope you like the site and I’d really appreciate if you'd mention it on your blog.

The service for rowing clubs doesn't cost anything. I’d like to invite you to put a notice up for any boats or rowing equipment that you might be looking for or have to sell. You can also list coaches positions or any other rowing related matters.

If you're having trouble posting on the rowing illustrated site - you have to register.

It is clearly true that the poll is simply people voting for their own schools - but a lot of the same thing happened with the FITD polls. The discussion board can still be useful to find out what's going on...

Congrats to G'TWN LT'WT's for their 2nd place finish @the IRA'SKUDO"S to Coach(s) O'Connor, Trowbridge, Smeeding, and to Head Coach Putray. Look's like his philosophy and approach of "one team" paid off. I hope the critic's from the past 10 months are capable of giving notice to his success.

COngrats to Georgetown LtWt4, who won the 2008 Schuykill Navy Regatta - in spite of the coaches philosophy that the best erg scores make the best rowers, these 4 ladies made a statement. It takes a cohesive group, who posess technique, deidcation and will along with erg scores to make it all come together. O'Connor focuses too much on erg scores and not enough on the whole package.

What a shame the lottery of the Head of the Charles will exclude Georgetown lights. They will be taking a Ltwt 4. If it's about racing the best of the best, how could they exclude the 2nd place winner of the 2007 IRA'S...doesn't make much sense to me, but neither does racing girl's all fall and early spring as a 2V, then magically pulling together a ltwt8. Race your lights as lights and treat fall racing as it was meant to be, the practice for the spring. Win some, lose some and then find out the real #1 at Sprints and the Ira's...

The Wisco boat at the Charles was not a novice boat. They had four of the same people from last year's IRA boat. And they really didn't look that good. They were barely able to get by Princeton, and only were able to do it because they had the inside of that big corner by Cambridge Boat club.

looks like lightweight women's rowing is on the decline. only eight boats are even considering going to the IRA based on the entries on regatta central. what gives? did jw burk abandon lightweight women's rowing too?

If you are talking about the women's lw eights, I think that there were nine boats in the last IRA. Given that eight of the nine were from the east, that's not bad given that the '09 IRA will be in California. I can only see which organizations have registered, not event level detail yet. But the only organization that fielded a lw women's eight last year that's not registered for the regatta this year is UCF. Cal is registered this year, but I think their women's lw eight is a club team, so they probably aren't eligible to compete. There are some MIA from last year's lw fours (Tulsa, Pitt, Fordham, LMU registered but I think they dropped lw's), but I don't know if that event is on the agenda this year? University finances are under intense pressure, so I don't know that you can blame JWB for this!

Let's face it --- no matter how you slice it -- lights don't get the credit they deserve. Gtown is builing up their heaavies, some of the lights have quit(can't imagine why - ergs float-don't they) it seems that at every turn, the lights get slammed. They do the same amount of work, have the same drive, dedication and success, but no rewards are bestowed on them except the personal saaatifaction from rowing. There are no scholarships, why...do the open's get them. Why does it seem, they are treated as second class rowers...I imagine until the NCAA recognizes them and changes the rules...personal satisfaction will have to be enough...

I would guess that there are lightweights in quite a few of the boats at the NCAA's. In fact, some probably win medals. Having separate lightweight events is just silly. The few schools that have lightweight programs do so because it adds numbers, on the cheap.

"Adding numbers on the cheap" -- whatever you mean by that is NOT the reason Gtown and the others row lights. They row lights beacuase they have coahes and crews who are DEDICATED to being lights. They are natural lightweight rowers who COULD row in the open if they wished but have absolutely NO DESIRE to row with the opens. They are lights and proud of it. Many sports have weight categories -- those athletes are not looked at in a lesser vain -- accept it -- some of those "pretty lights" could row the bow off those heavies... Let their be lights and let the best light 8 shine.....

Here is the scoop:Kish was beaten out in the CRCA election. A board member from the CRCA has to me in on all committees. Both Acosta and Miller ran for the CRCA board in their regions, but neither won a seat on the board. Lori agreed to sit on the committee, but I believe that she'll defer the decision-making to the lightweight coaches who are on the committee.Since Lori is the only coach on the CRCA board with a lightweight program at her school, she seems the logical choice. I'm interested to hear why JW thinks Lori is bad for LW rowing. Princeton has a long history of supporting a very strong lightweight team.

Al Acosta from Stanford won an election of lw coaches on the committee (he and Miller from Wisco were up for the co-chair position). So Acosta is the co-chair with Lori.

Yes, *Princeton* has a long history of support for lightweight rowing. To answer your question, let me say this:

Because rowing is a team sport in the NCAA, any heavyweight coach who gets her hands on a strong lightweight would prefer to condemn that woman to a career of rowing in a heavy 2V or 4+ before she would give her over to the lightweight program where she could help a crew win a national championship. The heavyweight coach needs a strong 2V and 4+ to compete for the national championship. The V8 is just another boat, although the one with the most points. The school ADs don't care about winning the V8 at NCAAs, they care about the team championship. For this reason, a heavyweight coach has every incentive to hoard every female rower she thinks can compete for the 20th seat on her team. Think about that - it includes a lot of lightweights, even at the NCAA championship level. No heavyweight coach can ever be expected to support or respect a team that serves, in her eyes, to make her less competitive. Lori Dauphiny is no different. The fox guards the hen house. The NCAA's destruction of lightweight rowing continues.

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of examples of lightweight programs and heavy programs working together and being successful. Wisconsin is a great example of this. There are definitely lightweight rowers at Wisconsin who would make an impact on the heavy team, but the open coach, who is also the "head" women's coach, is interested in keeping the programs separate and thus fielding a competitive lightweight team. The Administration is in support of this too it would seem, since they must spend a lot of money to travel to all of those races. Stanford is another good example. The Cardinal heavies are not stealing lightweight rowers.

I think the problems at Princeton have more to do with the number of freshman rowers they are getting enrolled each year. For whatever reason, they don't seem to have enough rowers to field an open novice eight and a light novice eight, so they are combined for that year. If they are still lightweights, then I guess they join the lwt team.

I can see that there is more incentive to join the heavy team if you are at a place like Princeton or Radcliffe, since those teams tend to do quite well. But at the same time it is a lot harder to make those teams because they have a lot more talented, stronger rowers.

I think that JW, you are bit paraniod about the "poaching" of athletes.

BTW--JW, when are you going to start this thing up again? The healthy discussion and attention to LW rowing is beneficial to the sport.

It seems many "light programs" are struggling. Gtown is losing them left and right -- the program seems to be a divided one -- girls are quitting and the head coach does nothing to intervene. What's up with that? There seems to be only 9 that matter? So much for builing 'Team spirit" - he has decided to focus on 9 - I guess a medal at ALL costs is fine with the administrators at Gtown. Disrespect, general LACk of concern, and separation seem to be the under lying motto of the light program. There is an article in Sports Illustrated about "COACHES" and what lengths they will go to win - It seems O'Connor has lost what really matters and winning at ALL costs is the goal. No wonder they are quitting left and right. Someone from Wisco should tell him how its done -- UNITED WE WIN and divided we fall.

Why don't we start using the Rowing Illustrated boards to continue these discussions? It seems like, other than sporadic little tid-bits, JW is done with this. The discussions that are taking place right here are far better than those on the Rowing Illustrated boards, but that seems like our next best option. This sort of discussion and speculation is good for the sport and keeps up interest. Let's keep it going!

WISCO WILL GO ALL THE WAY...NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN WISCONSIN ,,,BUT THE COACHES THERE SURE COULD TEACH OTHER LIKE GTOWN A THING OR TWO....THEY REMAIN ON TOP - NO INJURIES AND NO QUITTERS...GTOWN CAN'T KEEP ANY OF THEIR RECRUITS...CAN'T IMAGING WHY-THERE IS ALWAYS SO MUCH POSITIVE RE-INFORCEMENT FROM O'CONNOR.....SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS...MY FRIEND ROWED THERE - BUT NOT FOR LONG...THE ABUSE IS TOO MUCH TO TAKE...ERGS FLOAT AT GTOWN..NO NEED FOR COHESIVENESS - JUST THE BEST ERG SCORE...

Anonymous, you seem to be pretty harsh there. how can you be so certain about these things? im just taking a wild guess here, but i assume that your "friend" was slow on the erg, but thought they were fast on the water. wisco is good because they get all the good recruits. academics cannot compare to gtown, princeton, harvard, stanford. it sounds mean, but its the truth.

Anon, If your friend quit, why do you care so much if Gtown changes their ways? How does that even give you any credible insight into a situation that you aren't a part of? I'd rather hear the opinions of people who are putting in the hours every day towards racing at the IRA. I think every program has seen their fair share of people leave, and everyone involved knows it's because those people can't handle it. Again, now that your 'friend' has coped out, why do you care? Move on.

Putyrae is going to emphasize the openweight crews and use lightweight athletes in the open 1v during the season and at the eastern sprints. o’conner would have never gone for it and would have fought for the independence of the ltwt. squad so Putyrae forced him out before announcing this plan

what a shame! gtown has always been one of the few consistant ltwt teams. to take a nationally ranked team and sacrifice it for the sake of a much slower team does not make sense. was it Putyrae who made him leave?

so what does it take to be "nationally ranked"? It seems to me that every varsity lightweight men's and women's program is nationally ranked. In fact, it seems as if programs that don't even exist are also nationally ranked. Based on the IRA, there are eight lightweight teams and Georgetown was sixth (bottom third). You could easily argue that their Big East openweight squad is ranked higher than the bottom third of Division I women's rowing teams. Or, you could even say, who cares if Georgetown lightweights make it to the top third. Who cares? But, as a Big East program, I think there are lot of folks in their department who care if their overall combined squad can have a shot at the Big East win and a future AQ to the NCAA.

Big East? Who cares about Big East? I would bet that the Wisco ltwts (and Stanford) could win the Big East. Gtown ltwts have better rowers and row better, which is why Putyrae is dissolving their program. Too bad it is going to backfire because they will no longer get good ltwts, only their average openweights who get in to go to Gtown. NCAA bid? What did they place at EASTERN SPRINTS? 14 out of 15? And now they want to go to NCAA?

The athletic department cares about the Big East, since that is their conference, duh. Virginia has some good lightweights, but in openweight boats. When Putryae mixed his open and lights at the Big East, they finished second. Sure, the Sprints finish was a different story as the lights were in lwt boats. If I was a lightweight at Gtown, I would much rather be part of a top three Big East program than fifth and sixth out of six at the IRA.

If Georgetown only cares about the big east result, this means the head women’s rowing coach has failed in his duty to support the entire women’s rowing program. If done correctly, the head women’s rowing coach would have marketed lightweight women’s rowing and explained the value of the IRA (Please see Stanford, Wisco and Radcliffe). However, when there is a conflict of interest between lightweight womens rowing and the head coaches personal goals the school and AD will never be educated about the true value of lightweight women’s rowing.

Those Georgetown supporters who look at the 2010 big east result as a sign that their “program” is competitive and on the cusp of an NCAA bid are wrong. Look at the events from the 2010 big east championship that would determine NCAA qualification. Also remember, Georgetown was already using lightweights in these crews - varsity 8 finished 5th – 21.8 seconds behind the winner. 2v second place finish but they were still 8.9 seconds behind first. V4silver but 18.3 seconds behind first.

someone in DC needs a reality check. 7 lengths behind the 1V winner, 3 lengths behind the 2v winner and 9 ½ lengths behind the winner of the 4+.It is delusional to think that lightweights training with the openweights all year will close the gap between where the hoyas currently are and where the AQ qualifying champ of the big east will be.

Lastly, Syracuse hired a proven winner to re-direct their program and Louisville is flooding their program with more and more money. In DC, enjoy these days of being a "top 3 big east program."

Amen. Don't forget that the ltwts got 3rd overall at the HOCR last year. I don't recall the opwts. Did they have an 8? It seems to me that the opwts' results have been declining in the past 3 years. Too bad that the athletic department doesn't seem to know much about rowing and that this big east "accomplishment" is not much at all.

When I started it way back when, it was really for me to keep a record of our time abroad and to keep the odd friend and family vaguely in touch with what we were up to. Eventually I discovered a whole blogging community and this turned into a bit of a life line for me.

Well trust me to turn up at the party as the last guest passes out! Only just found you...

Will have to look through your past posts as liking your style from the last one alone.

I'm attempting a challenge in EVERY sport in the Olympics before London 2012 and wanted to share my Rowing Challenge tales while picking up new tips and hearing about the real world of Rowing...oh well!